So, having caught my breath a bit after a long few days at CRA’s biennial Snowbird “Chairs’ Conference,” I was just setting out to write up a post with some of the highlights of the conference when I saw that Cameron Wilson of ACM’s Technology Policy Blog had already beaten me to the punch. Cameron’s summary of Rick Rashid’s talk today on bringing the romance back to computer science is right on target and well worth reading…so the first thing you should probably do is go there.
In addition to Rashid’s talk, the other keynotes/plenaries were also very good. Genevieve Bell, Director of Domestic Designs and Technologies Research at Intel, gave a wonderful keynote speech drawing upon her experience as an anthropologist helping Intel understand the needs of its customers. She highlighted the incredibly varied ways different cultures make use of technologies, pointing out how these uses illustrate a whole range of different computing futures. (Her slides, as well as all the others, will be available here as soon as they’re posted.)
As Cameron mentioned, Ed Lazowska laid out the opportunities and challenges ahead for computing — pointing out the unique opportunity the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative presents and the reasons to be optimistic and energized by the intellectual challenges and career opportunities in the field. Ed’s talk (slides available here) helped provide themes that speakers referenced in many of the sessions that followed.
Dan Reed’s “State of Computing” talk was also very effective, I thought, (and not just because he’s CRA’s Chair and my boss) laying out the essential role of computing as an intellectual lever and discussing the need for the computing community to engage in grand visioning and find a compelling, unified voice. When his slides are up, I’ll post the link right here because they’re worth reviewing.
All in all, I hope the attendees left the conference today feeling more energized about the discipline — reminded of the intellectual richness of the field, the promise of the work, the improving budget climate, and with a clearer sense the true opportunities (growing opportunities) in the field — to arrive back at their home institutions more optimistic than ever about the future of computing.
The Senate Appropriations Committee released its FY07 subcommittee allocations and there was some good news for the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee. The subcommittee can give a decent bump to NSF and NIST with the $51 billion allocated. The allocation is slightly more than the $49.633 billion the President requested and 3.2% above FY06. However there are some Senators on the committee who are intent on restoring funding to NASA and NOAA that was cut in the President’s Budget Request so we may not see the increase in NSF that we want when the subcommittee puts out a bill.
In recent blog posts, CRA discussed the House Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, and Commerce for fully funding the ACI. However, we warned that there could be a floor fight on this legislation also because of the NASA and NOAA cuts as well as other programs that were reduced in the President’s Budget Request.
The following leading science, technology, educational, business and trade associations are writing to urge you to consider S. 2802 the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006 and S. 2197 Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Through Energy Act of 2006 or (PACE-Energy Act) for floor consideration as soon as possible. Both pieces of legislation respond to recommendations contained in the Council on Competitiveness Innovate America Report and the National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm Report.
In a world where many nations compete on the basis of cost and quality, innovation is the key arbiter of competitiveness. Other countries are increasing investments in basic research and better-educating their science and engineering workforce. We must respond by strengthening our capability to innovate in an increasingly challenging, knowledge-based, global economy. Americas strategic role in world affairs is intertwined with the global economic marketplace. We must act now to ensure our leadership role in economic and strategic affairs for generations to come.
America has many resources to accomplish this tasknot the least of which is our ability to recognize when change is required and action is necessary. We urge you to move expeditiously to bring both of these bills before the full Senate. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
The second letter to Speaker Hastert and Representative Boehner requests floor time for H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358, two bills that would authorize STEM scholarships, teacher training, and early-career research funding at NSF and DoE’s Office of Science. The text of the letter is:
As leaders in the science, technology, education, and business communities, we are writing to urge you to schedule floor time to consider important measures approved recently by the House Science CommitteeH.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358. These bills would authorize Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics or STEM scholarships, teacher training and early-career research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energys Office of Science.
In a world where many nations compete on the basis of cost and quality, innovation is the key arbiter of competitiveness. Other countries are increasing investments in basic research and better-educating their science and engineering workforce. We must respond by strengthening our capability to innovate in an increasingly challenging, knowledge-based, global economy. Americas strategic role in world affairs is intertwined with the global economic marketplace. We must act now to ensure our leadership role in economic and strategic affairs for generations to come.
America has many resources to accomplish this tasknot the least of which is our ability to recognize when change is required and action is necessary. We urge you to move expeditiously to bring both of these bills before the full Senate. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
With the shortened legislative calendar, if the bills don’t get floor time soon then they probably won’t be debated this year.
CRA is pleased to announce that Melissa Norr will be joining the staff here at CRA World HQ on June 19th to augment our Government Affairs efforts. Melissa is already well-familiar with federal science policy, having come to CRA from the Optical Society of America, where she was the Government and Public Relations Coordinator. She has a BA in Public Relations with a minor in English from Penn State University.
In her new role, Melissa will be responsible for monitoring and tracking a portfolio of issues important to CRA — in addition to being tasked with helping CRA communicate its policy efforts more effectively to policymakers and to our membership.
CRA will also again have the services of an Eben Tisdale Public Policy Fellow for the summer. This year’s fellow is Erica Camese, who is currently studying public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Erica is originally from New Orleans and was a nuclear engineering student at Texas A&M before heading to CMU.
Blog posting frequency should increase substantially with both Melissa and Erica contributing items they think will be of interest to the community. More importantly, this expansion of CRA’s policy staff should allow CRA and the computing community take advantage of new opportunities to engage DC policymakers and make the case for IT research.
Welcome Melissa and Erica!
June 15, 2006
COMPUTING COMMUNITY LEADERS PRAISE HOUSE APPROPRIATORS
FOR INCREASING RESEARCH FUNDING TO AID COMPETITIVENESS
Washington, DC — Leaders of the Computing Research Association (CRA) and ACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) today commended Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and his colleagues on a House Appropriations Subcommittee for fully supporting the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in legislation passed by the subcommittee today.
The bill, approved by the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice and Commerce, would provide an 8 percent increase in research funding at the National Science Foundation – an increase of $439 million over last year’s level – and an additional $104 million increase to the core laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Both increases are key parts of the ACI proposed by the President in his State of the Union address last January.
“Chairman Wolf and his committee have created a historic opportunity to secure the Nation’s leadership in research in information technology and other physical sciences,” said Daniel A. Reed, Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute at the University of North Carolina and Chair of the Computing Research Association. “By acting to fulfill the promise of ACI, the subcommittee has made a down payment on America’s future competitiveness.”
“We applaud this decisive action and are pleased that the legislation responds to our advice about making a serious statement about fostering innovation in America,” said Eugene Spafford, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance at Purdue University and Chair of the Association for Computing Machinery’s U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM). “The computing research field is a crucial example of how federal investment in fundamental research drives economic growth. These increases would reverse a lengthy trend of flat or declining budgets in computing research that threaten to put future innovation at risk.”
“The computing research community thanks Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Allan Mollohan (D-WV), and the other members of the subcommittee for their extraordinary leadership in support of federal investment in fundamental research,” Reed said.
——-
About CRA
The Computing Research Association is an association of more than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, computer engineering and related fields; laboratories and centers in industry, government and academia engaging in basic computing research; and affiliated professional societies. CRA’s mission is to strengthen research and advanced education in the computing fields, expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in our society. web: https://cra.org
About ACM
ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery, is an educational and scientific society uniting the world’s computing educators, researchers and professionals to inspire dialogue, share resources and address the field’s challenges. ACM strengthens the profession’s collective voice through strong leadership, promotion of the highest standards, and recognition of technical excellence. ACM supports the professional growth of its members by providing opportunities for life-long learning, career development, and professional networking.
web: http://acm.org
ABOUT USACM
The ACM U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) serves as the focal point for ACM’s interaction with U.S. government organizations, the computing community, and the U.S. public in all matters of U.S. public policy related to information technology. Supported by ACM’s Washington, D.C., Office of Public Policy, USACM responds to requests for information and technical expertise from U.S. government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant U.S. government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to ACM on relevant U.S. government activities.
web: http://www.acm.org/usacm
# # #
So, while this development is great news for those with an interest in seeing the federal investment in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering increase, it’s by no means a done deal. As I pointed out in the last post, there are a number of significant hurdles ahead. One potentially troublesome aspect is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did not fare well at all in the House SSJC appropriation. NOAA, which was already facing a cut in the President’s requested budget for FY 2007 would receive even less than the President’s request in this bill (actually, nearly $240 million less!). Given NOAA’s role in hurricane warning and prediction, it’s probably not a stretch to imagine a number of Gulf Coast representatives inclined to protect NOAA at the expense of a big increase to NSF or NIST, just as an example of what may ensue when this bill gets to the floor and the amendments start flying.
The bill is expected to go to the full committee next week, which means it will likely hit the floor the following week. As we get closer, watch this space to learn what you can do to make sure the gains for science are preserved.
The first numbers from the House Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations subcommittee are out and it appears Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) made good on his promise to “take care of” the ACI-targeted agencies within “his” bill. From the committee’s press release, just sent out:
National Science Foundation receives $6 billion, the full amount requested as part of the American Competitive Initiative and an increase of $439 million above FY06. Includes $4.6 billion for research, $334.5 million above FY06; and $832.4 million for science education, $16.2 million above the request.
$627 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, including $104 million to fully fund the American Competitiveness Initiative, and $92 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.
The challenge, of course, will be ensuring that these levels survive the floor debate, but we’re way ahead of where we were at this time last year. More details as they come available….
The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill yesterday that would increase the authorization for two key science agencies, create a new program of “Innovation Acceleration Grants” at federal agencies, create a council to oversee basic research efforts at NASA, and direct the National Academies to study “forms of risk that create barriers to innovation.”
The committee approved the bill — the “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act” (S. 2802), introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) — by a vote of 21-0 after a compromise was reached on a controversial amendment introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). The amendment originally proposed by Hutchison would have directed NSF to place priority on funding efforts in “the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics” that would help meet “critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The proposed amendment was seen as an attack on the social sciences by many in the science community and some of the members of the committee. Hutchison has not been a particular fan of social science research at NSF in recent years. Inside Higher Edreports that in a hearing earlier this year, Hutchison called social science research a “burden” on NSF that is distracting from the goal of technological competitiveness.
Hutchison reiterated her feeling that Congress should focus on science and technology because we are responding to a crisis in our country. Hutchison added that she is not against social sciences being part of the NSF budget, but that I want to make sure we focus on the mission we are after. Hutchison appeared to be using a broad definition of social science when she noted that biology, geology, economics, and archaeology are worthy pursuits, but can often stray from the innovation and competitiveness path.
She again cited specific NSF funded social science studies that she thinks should not be funded by the foundation. I object to the study of the impact of global changes on 300 women workers in Bangladesh, she said. I want good social science research, she adding, noting endeavors like the development of digital technology for teaching children.
Amidst pressure from other members of the committee, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who proposed language that would strip the Hutchison language, and members of the science community (who objected not only to the attack on a particular discipline, but to the idea of congressional micromanagement of NSF), Hutchison modified her amendment. Instead of prioritizing research in the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (a broad collection of disciplines which Hutchison intended to include computer science as well), the modified amendment directs NSF to “include consideration of the degree to which awards and research activities may assist in meeting critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The amendment also contains the limitation:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or bias the grant selection process against funding other areas of research deemed by the Foundation to be consistent with its mandate, nor to change the core mission of the Foundation.
Other provisions in the bill include language that would direct NSF to provide grants to community colleges to establish apprenticeship programs for women pursuing technical training, and to create a mentoring program for women in science, and technology, engineering and math (included in the bill as an amendment by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)); and another to establish a “President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness” to “develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation in the public and private sectors.”
One amendment proposed but not included in the bill would have inserted the text of H.R. 28, the “High Performance Computing Revitalization Act,” that passed the House in April of last year. We’ve covered H.R. 28 previously in this space, and joined with USACM in endorsing the measure. However, Cantwell’s amendment faced some resistance from Ensign for reasons that aren’t completely clear, but appear to be technical in nature. Apparently a provision in H.R. 28 that would call on PITAC (which still existed as a separate committee at the time of the bill’s passage in the House) to review the state of the federal IT R&D portfolio every two years was problematic — perhaps because the committee has now been folded into PCAST. In any case, as a compromise, Ensign committed to holding a hearing in the “near future” on H.R. 28 — which has languished in the Senate for more than a year without action — and the importance of high-performance computing to innovation. In return, Cantwell withdrew her amendment.
This is actually a positive development for the computing community, I think. H.R. 28, while a good bill, could use some tweaking — including addressing the issue with PITAC — and the discipline could surely use the additional exposure to be gained from a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on our issues. CRA will of course do what we can to help the committee prepare for the hearing and we’ll have more details as they come available.
In the meantime, here’s some additional coverage of the markup yesterday:
Last June, CRA joined with over 300 other science and university groups in filing comments (pdf) opposing the Department of Commerce’s proposed change to so-called “deemed export” regulations that would seriously impact university research efforts. A deemed export occurs when a foreign national “uses” technology subject to export restrictions while in the United States. The proposal would have made a number of significant changes:
Deemed export applications would be evaluated not just on country of citizenship and permanent residence, but on country of birth as well;
Expand the definition of use of controlled technologies to any form of instruction on their operation, including access to manuals and, by a conservative reading, visual access to a machine or source code; and
Exclude from the fundamental research exemption all research conducted under government sponsorship that is subject, either by regulation or prudential practice, to prepublication review.
CRA objected to the rule changes for a number of reasons — it’s unjust and anti-democratic to judge people on their country of birth; the rule changes concerning the word “use” are confusing; the rule would impose tremendous costs on researchers, their institutions and the Department of Commerce; the rule shows a misunderstanding of editorial review and how scientific research works; and we weren’t sure that a credible problem exists.
The Department of Commerce has apparently listened to the community in opposition and decided to step back from it’s proposed rule. A Bloomberg story with some of the detail is here. This is my favorite quote:
“I came to the conclusion it was a much sounder approach to actually think about the overarching policy and revisit basic assumptions and revisit objectives,” said [David] McCormick, [U.S. undersecretary of Commerce for industry and security].
The first appropriations numbers for elements of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative are starting to percolate out, and they’re good. The House Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee marked up their FY07 E&W Approps bill today, which contains funding for Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The appropriators have included the full funding requested by the President for ACI at the Office of Science — a 14 percent increase for the office over the FY 2006 level. The appropriators also included about $30 million within the office in “Congressionally directed funding,” but that is over and above the ACI amount. So very good news there.
Word is also that Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who chairs the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations subcommittee (which includes ACI agencies NSF and NIST), has said that he’s “taken care of ACI” in his bill as well. The SSJC bill won’t be marked up until June, but full funding of ACI would mean a 7.8 percent increase to NSF and a 24 percent increase to NIST’s core research programs — though the NIST number is a little trickier because of likely earmarking.
Wolf anticipates there will be some effort once the bill reaches the House floor to divert some of the ACI funding to other areas of the bill that received cuts (as happens every year with science funding) and so he’s looking to the science community to help with the fight. CRA will participate in that effort — we’ll have details soon how you can help, too.
No word yet on the Senate number — though for NSF, it’s not expected to be quite as good. The Senate appropriators are apparently more inclined to “take care” of NASA and NOAA in their bill, as those agencies didn’t fare quite as well in the President’s budget.
Of course, the fact that the House seems much more on board with actually providing funding for ACI is ironic given how non-committal (or downright hostile) the leadership seemed to be over the initiative in recent months. But that’s Washington….
Anyway, I’ll have more updates as the numbers become a little clearer. In the meantime, here’s a bit of the press release issued by the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee today.
ENERGY INITIATIVES:
The bill provides $24.373 billion for the Department of Energy, $327 million above the FY2006 level and $299 million above the request.
The bill fully funds the American Competitiveness Initiative which would strengthen basic research by increasing funding for the DOE Office of Science, for a total of $4.132 billion. In addition, the bill supports the Advanced Energy Initiative by increasing funding for a variety of clean energy technologies, including biomass, hydrogen, solar, wind, and clean coal.
The bill provides $150 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the administrations initiative on recycling spent nuclear fuel, $96 million below the request but at the level authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Energy Supply and Conservation programs are funded at $2.0 billion, $102 million above FY06. The bill restores reductions in other essential energy programs, such as support for university nuclear energy education (funded at $27 million) and weatherization assistance (restoring $78 million cut for a total of $242.5 million).
Fossil Energy research and development programs are funded at $558 million, an increase of $88.5 over the request, to include $54 million for FutureGen, and $36.4 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative.
The Bill funds the Yucca Mountain repository at $544.5 million. This includes $156.4 million for Nuclear Waste Disposal and $388 million for Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. In addition, the Committee provides another $30 million for interim storage of spent fuel, subject to authorization.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which includes the nuclear weapons program, defense nuclear nonproliferation, naval reactors and the Office of the Administrator, is funded at $9.2 billion, an increase of $95 million over last year and $116 million below the Presidents request. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities are funded at $1.6 billion, $22 million below FY06 and $133 million below the request. The bill provides $105 million for container screening at foreign ports, $65 million above the request. Weapons activities are funded at $6.4 billion, $42 million above FY06 and $4 million above the request. Within the Weapons Activities account, the bill targets $140 million for weapons complex reform and consolidation activities.
Defense Environmental Cleanup programs are funded at $5.55 billion, an increase of $161.5 million over the request. The Chairmans mark provides $600 million for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. Non-defense Environmental Cleanup activities are funded at $309.9 million, a decrease of $0.4 million below the request.
The Power Marketing Administrations are funded at $252 million, $18 million below last year and the same as the request.
The Denali Commission total funding is $7.5 million. Appalachian Regional Commission is reduced by $30 million, total funding is $35.5 million The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is funded at $808.4 million, an increase of $40 million to provide for the anticipated growth in reactor license applications.
The bill terminates the following programs:
State energy program grants: $49.5 million
Geothermal R&D technology: $23 million
Natural gas R&D technologies: $20 million
Construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant and the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility at the Savannah Site: $368 million
The bill reduces total earmarks by $200 million, or 16 percent, compared to last years House bill.
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), known as one of the biggest budget hawks on the Hill (in fact, he’s the highest ranked “taxpayers’ friend” in the Senate, according to the National Taxpayers Union) has his take on the current push for competitiveness legislation in today’s Washington Times. While it’s not surprising that he sees lots of “waste” when he looks at the competitiveness bills currently floating around the Senate, it’s encouraging that the essence of his Op-Ed is that the federal government’s real role in advancing competitiveness is in supporting fundamental research. Here’s a liberally-quoted bit from the piece (no pun intended):
As this debate moves forward, any legislation designed to promote American competitiveness and innovation should adhere to the following rules to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not wasted or misused:
Focus on the basics. Federal funding for research and development should be applied toward basic science and technology, (such as chemistry, physics, material science and computational mathematics) rather than applied research, technology transfer or commercialization efforts. The private sector not the federal government has the obligation to advance the findings of basic research into marketable products and technologies. Equally troubling, legislators await the movement of a competitiveness bill in hopes they may attach pet research projects or fund a favored industry. Politicizing the process only undermines the integrity of peer review and dilutes the effectiveness of these resources.
Don’t over-promise. To date, Senate competitiveness bills are littered with increased authorization levels for various purposes. Billions of dollars would be needed to actually fund programs at such inflated levels. Given this scenario, reasonable authorization levels must be utilized to ensure that funding can actually be secured through the appropriations process. It would not be beneficial to repeat an example from 2002, when Congress reauthorized the NSF with the goal of doubling its annual funding. Ultimately, NSF appropriations never approached such levels.
Limit new programs. Like so many other sound-bite driven “debates” in Congress, competitiveness proposals often boil down to the usual simplistic solution: Create more government programs. How many times do we have to go down this same costly road? And when was the last time we dealt effectively with a complex problem by creating new federal programs? One Senate bill would create more than 20 new programs without eliminating a single one. Dozens already exist, including the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and other questionable expenditures of funds. Congress should not create new programs without a thorough review of the value and efficacy of existing programs. Otherwise, we are merely diverting funding to new programs and layers of bureaucracy when such money could be used on basic research.
Make hard decisions. Once realistic authorization levels are established, Congress needs to make the necessary adjustments to ensure funding increases actually occur. Spending billions on a competitiveness agenda through deficit spending restricts future economic growth, and stunts future innovation and competitiveness. If we are to increase funding for a competitiveness agenda, legislation needs to include necessary rescissions and program repeals to remain budget neutral.
Don’t play favorites. Given the popularity of a competitiveness initiative, it is disappointing that agencies integrally involved in basic research are being ignored. For instance, NASA’s basic science mission, referred to by many as its crown jewel, results in significant scientific findings. Ironically, the administration recently proposed that planned spending for these accounts be cut by more than $3 billion over the next few years, a decision NASA Administrator Michael Griffin admitted was made solely for budgetary reasons. How is this internally consistent for the administration?
If done for the right reasons, a successful plan to invest new resources in scientific research can have a positive impact. Without discipline and focus, however, Congress is doomed to repeat the same mistakes, fund more failed programs and expand federal bureaucracy.
America’s technology-driven economy grows despite, not because of, government intervention. That is a lesson we all need to learn before trying to “fix” what ails us.
While we could quibble with a lot of that — the difference between “basic” and “applied” research is often not so cut and dried as he implies, authorizing NSF’s doubling sent an important signal, etc — it’s hard to imagine getting a more favorable endorsement from a fiscal conservative of the portions of the ACI we care most about. It’s certainly a more thoughtful response to the President’s plan than a recent conservative think tank take, which ignored the R&D portion of the ACI completely….
Anyway, even if you disagree with the perspective, Sununu’s OpEd is worth reading.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Outsourcing Our Snowbird Coverage
/In: CRA, Events, People /by Peter HarshaSo, having caught my breath a bit after a long few days at CRA’s biennial Snowbird “Chairs’ Conference,” I was just setting out to write up a post with some of the highlights of the conference when I saw that Cameron Wilson of ACM’s Technology Policy Blog had already beaten me to the punch. Cameron’s summary of Rick Rashid’s talk today on bringing the romance back to computer science is right on target and well worth reading…so the first thing you should probably do is go there.
In addition to Rashid’s talk, the other keynotes/plenaries were also very good. Genevieve Bell, Director of Domestic Designs and Technologies Research at Intel, gave a wonderful keynote speech drawing upon her experience as an anthropologist helping Intel understand the needs of its customers. She highlighted the incredibly varied ways different cultures make use of technologies, pointing out how these uses illustrate a whole range of different computing futures. (Her slides, as well as all the others, will be available here as soon as they’re posted.)
As Cameron mentioned, Ed Lazowska laid out the opportunities and challenges ahead for computing — pointing out the unique opportunity the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative presents and the reasons to be optimistic and energized by the intellectual challenges and career opportunities in the field. Ed’s talk (slides available here) helped provide themes that speakers referenced in many of the sessions that followed.
Dan Reed’s “State of Computing” talk was also very effective, I thought, (and not just because he’s CRA’s Chair and my boss) laying out the essential role of computing as an intellectual lever and discussing the need for the computing community to engage in grand visioning and find a compelling, unified voice. When his slides are up, I’ll post the link right here because they’re worth reviewing.
All in all, I hope the attendees left the conference today feeling more energized about the discipline — reminded of the intellectual richness of the field, the promise of the work, the improving budget climate, and with a clearer sense the true opportunities (growing opportunities) in the field — to arrive back at their home institutions more optimistic than ever about the future of computing.
Good Allocation for Science from Senate Appropriations
/In: FY07 Appropriations /by MelissaNorrThe Senate Appropriations Committee released its FY07 subcommittee allocations and there was some good news for the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee. The subcommittee can give a decent bump to NSF and NIST with the $51 billion allocated. The allocation is slightly more than the $49.633 billion the President requested and 3.2% above FY06. However there are some Senators on the committee who are intent on restoring funding to NASA and NOAA that was cut in the President’s Budget Request so we may not see the increase in NSF that we want when the subcommittee puts out a bill.
In recent blog posts, CRA discussed the House Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, and Commerce for fully funding the ACI. However, we warned that there could be a floor fight on this legislation also because of the NASA and NOAA cuts as well as other programs that were reduced in the President’s Budget Request.
CRA Signs Letters to Leadership
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, Policy /by MelissaNorrCRA has signed onto two letters to the Congressional leadership urging floor time for innovation legislation.
The first letter to Senator Frist asks for prompt floor time to debate S. 2802, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act and S. 2197, the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge through Energy Act. Here is the text of the letter:
The second letter to Speaker Hastert and Representative Boehner requests floor time for H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358, two bills that would authorize STEM scholarships, teacher training, and early-career research funding at NSF and DoE’s Office of Science. The text of the letter is:
With the shortened legislative calendar, if the bills don’t get floor time soon then they probably won’t be debated this year.
CRA Adds New Policy Staff
/In: CRA /by Peter HarshaCRA is pleased to announce that Melissa Norr will be joining the staff here at CRA World HQ on June 19th to augment our Government Affairs efforts. Melissa is already well-familiar with federal science policy, having come to CRA from the Optical Society of America, where she was the Government and Public Relations Coordinator. She has a BA in Public Relations with a minor in English from Penn State University.
In her new role, Melissa will be responsible for monitoring and tracking a portfolio of issues important to CRA — in addition to being tasked with helping CRA communicate its policy efforts more effectively to policymakers and to our membership.
CRA will also again have the services of an Eben Tisdale Public Policy Fellow for the summer. This year’s fellow is Erica Camese, who is currently studying public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Erica is originally from New Orleans and was a nuclear engineering student at Texas A&M before heading to CMU.
Blog posting frequency should increase substantially with both Melissa and Erica contributing items they think will be of interest to the community. More importantly, this expansion of CRA’s policy staff should allow CRA and the computing community take advantage of new opportunities to engage DC policymakers and make the case for IT research.
Welcome Melissa and Erica!
Computing Leaders Praise House Appropriatiors for Innovation Funding
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, CRA, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaReacting to yesterday’s good news, CRA and ACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee issued a joint statement yesterday thanking Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and his colleagues for their efforts. Here’s the full text:
So, while this development is great news for those with an interest in seeing the federal investment in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering increase, it’s by no means a done deal. As I pointed out in the last post, there are a number of significant hurdles ahead. One potentially troublesome aspect is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did not fare well at all in the House SSJC appropriation. NOAA, which was already facing a cut in the President’s requested budget for FY 2007 would receive even less than the President’s request in this bill (actually, nearly $240 million less!). Given NOAA’s role in hurricane warning and prediction, it’s probably not a stretch to imagine a number of Gulf Coast representatives inclined to protect NOAA at the expense of a big increase to NSF or NIST, just as an example of what may ensue when this bill gets to the floor and the amendments start flying.
The bill is expected to go to the full committee next week, which means it will likely hit the floor the following week. As we get closer, watch this space to learn what you can do to make sure the gains for science are preserved.
NSF and NIST Appropriations Numbers Released
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe first numbers from the House Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations subcommittee are out and it appears Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) made good on his promise to “take care of” the ACI-targeted agencies within “his” bill. From the committee’s press release, just sent out:
The challenge, of course, will be ensuring that these levels survive the floor debate, but we’re way ahead of where we were at this time last year. More details as they come available….
Senate Commerce Committee Approves Key Innovation Authorization; Commits to a Hearing on Computing
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaThe Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill yesterday that would increase the authorization for two key science agencies, create a new program of “Innovation Acceleration Grants” at federal agencies, create a council to oversee basic research efforts at NASA, and direct the National Academies to study “forms of risk that create barriers to innovation.”
The committee approved the bill — the “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act” (S. 2802), introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) — by a vote of 21-0 after a compromise was reached on a controversial amendment introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). The amendment originally proposed by Hutchison would have directed NSF to place priority on funding efforts in “the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics” that would help meet “critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The proposed amendment was seen as an attack on the social sciences by many in the science community and some of the members of the committee. Hutchison has not been a particular fan of social science research at NSF in recent years. Inside Higher Ed reports that in a hearing earlier this year, Hutchison called social science research a “burden” on NSF that is distracting from the goal of technological competitiveness.
Amidst pressure from other members of the committee, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who proposed language that would strip the Hutchison language, and members of the science community (who objected not only to the attack on a particular discipline, but to the idea of congressional micromanagement of NSF), Hutchison modified her amendment. Instead of prioritizing research in the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (a broad collection of disciplines which Hutchison intended to include computer science as well), the modified amendment directs NSF to “include consideration of the degree to which awards and research activities may assist in meeting critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The amendment also contains the limitation:
Other provisions in the bill include language that would direct NSF to provide grants to community colleges to establish apprenticeship programs for women pursuing technical training, and to create a mentoring program for women in science, and technology, engineering and math (included in the bill as an amendment by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)); and another to establish a “President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness” to “develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation in the public and private sectors.”
One amendment proposed but not included in the bill would have inserted the text of H.R. 28, the “High Performance Computing Revitalization Act,” that passed the House in April of last year. We’ve covered H.R. 28 previously in this space, and joined with USACM in endorsing the measure. However, Cantwell’s amendment faced some resistance from Ensign for reasons that aren’t completely clear, but appear to be technical in nature. Apparently a provision in H.R. 28 that would call on PITAC (which still existed as a separate committee at the time of the bill’s passage in the House) to review the state of the federal IT R&D portfolio every two years was problematic — perhaps because the committee has now been folded into PCAST. In any case, as a compromise, Ensign committed to holding a hearing in the “near future” on H.R. 28 — which has languished in the Senate for more than a year without action — and the importance of high-performance computing to innovation. In return, Cantwell withdrew her amendment.
This is actually a positive development for the computing community, I think. H.R. 28, while a good bill, could use some tweaking — including addressing the issue with PITAC — and the discipline could surely use the additional exposure to be gained from a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on our issues. CRA will of course do what we can to help the committee prepare for the hearing and we’ll have more details as they come available.
In the meantime, here’s some additional coverage of the markup yesterday:
Commerce Department Wisely Rethinks Deemed Export Plan
/In: People, Policy, R&D in the Press, Research /by Peter HarshaLast June, CRA joined with over 300 other science and university groups in filing comments (pdf) opposing the Department of Commerce’s proposed change to so-called “deemed export” regulations that would seriously impact university research efforts. A deemed export occurs when a foreign national “uses” technology subject to export restrictions while in the United States. The proposal would have made a number of significant changes:
CRA objected to the rule changes for a number of reasons — it’s unjust and anti-democratic to judge people on their country of birth; the rule changes concerning the word “use” are confusing; the rule would impose tremendous costs on researchers, their institutions and the Department of Commerce; the rule shows a misunderstanding of editorial review and how scientific research works; and we weren’t sure that a credible problem exists.
The Department of Commerce has apparently listened to the community in opposition and decided to step back from it’s proposed rule. A Bloomberg story with some of the detail is here. This is my favorite quote:
Read the whole thing.
Here’s CRA’s original coverage of the proposed rule and our filed comments (pdf).
A nice win for the science community….
First Appropriations Numbers for ACI
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe first appropriations numbers for elements of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative are starting to percolate out, and they’re good. The House Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee marked up their FY07 E&W Approps bill today, which contains funding for Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The appropriators have included the full funding requested by the President for ACI at the Office of Science — a 14 percent increase for the office over the FY 2006 level. The appropriators also included about $30 million within the office in “Congressionally directed funding,” but that is over and above the ACI amount. So very good news there.
Word is also that Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who chairs the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations subcommittee (which includes ACI agencies NSF and NIST), has said that he’s “taken care of ACI” in his bill as well. The SSJC bill won’t be marked up until June, but full funding of ACI would mean a 7.8 percent increase to NSF and a 24 percent increase to NIST’s core research programs — though the NIST number is a little trickier because of likely earmarking.
Wolf anticipates there will be some effort once the bill reaches the House floor to divert some of the ACI funding to other areas of the bill that received cuts (as happens every year with science funding) and so he’s looking to the science community to help with the fight. CRA will participate in that effort — we’ll have details soon how you can help, too.
No word yet on the Senate number — though for NSF, it’s not expected to be quite as good. The Senate appropriators are apparently more inclined to “take care” of NASA and NOAA in their bill, as those agencies didn’t fare quite as well in the President’s budget.
Of course, the fact that the House seems much more on board with actually providing funding for ACI is ironic given how non-committal (or downright hostile) the leadership seemed to be over the initiative in recent months. But that’s Washington….
Anyway, I’ll have more updates as the numbers become a little clearer. In the meantime, here’s a bit of the press release issued by the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee today.
Sen. Sununu on Competitiveness and R&D
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations, Policy, R&D in the Press /by Peter HarshaSen. John Sununu (R-NH), known as one of the biggest budget hawks on the Hill (in fact, he’s the highest ranked “taxpayers’ friend” in the Senate, according to the National Taxpayers Union) has his take on the current push for competitiveness legislation in today’s Washington Times. While it’s not surprising that he sees lots of “waste” when he looks at the competitiveness bills currently floating around the Senate, it’s encouraging that the essence of his Op-Ed is that the federal government’s real role in advancing competitiveness is in supporting fundamental research. Here’s a liberally-quoted bit from the piece (no pun intended):
While we could quibble with a lot of that — the difference between “basic” and “applied” research is often not so cut and dried as he implies, authorizing NSF’s doubling sent an important signal, etc — it’s hard to imagine getting a more favorable endorsement from a fiscal conservative of the portions of the ACI we care most about. It’s certainly a more thoughtful response to the President’s plan than a recent conservative think tank take, which ignored the R&D portion of the ACI completely….
Anyway, even if you disagree with the perspective, Sununu’s OpEd is worth reading.